Tell The Truth: This Is A Woman's World...

March 18, 2017

For years, Conservatives have held religious faith and their own sense of religiosity over the heads of liberals; calling it "holier than thou" would be an understatement. From the rise of the Moral Majority to the attempts at political advocacy run out of evangelical churches to the Christian Coalition, the conservative right grew over the past fifty years in part by appeals to religious fundamentalism. And with it came notions that no one knew religion, morality and decency better than they did.

Much of this legendary religious certainty came in the face of internal tensions, never fully reconciled: the most stridently antiabortion rhetoric defined as "pro-life" came from people just as likely to turn around and express a near bloodthirsty interest in the death penalty, and after 9/11, acceptance of even the most casual justifications for the use of life endangering methods of torture. We were treated to lectures on immorality and marital fidelity from folks eager to elect much married, often multiply divorced leaders with scandalous histories of adultery. The most stunning revelations of closeted men seeking men, often much younger men or even boys, for gay sex have come from a cadre of religious leaders closely associated with conservative causes, or members of the GOP in Congress.

And yet, in the face of this, conservatives have continued to wield their mighty sword of piety and religiosity at every turn, unencumbered by a sense of humility or certainly even a modicum of irony. To this day, the notion of liberals as shameless, godless hedonists, angry antireligious extremists bent on taking God out of schools and all aspects of modern life wherever possible, persists.The arguments around these issues are intense, extreme, and most certainly, endless.

If liberalism could be defined as "a belief system" - something I heard much of growing up - what's been in remarkable over the past 25 years is watching liberalism move away from articles of faith to expressions of defensible public policy. Sociology, urban planning, education theory, economics, healthcare and energy policy... the list of areas where research and analysis has reached into thinking about government policy and actions is wide and deep. Policies that liberals advocate - from early childhood education, to nutrition, to environmental concerns, to energy policy and more - are built not on feel good pronouncements but the actual evidence of studying what works and what doesn't. That such policies and ideas often help to achieve desirable, compassionate ends is often not just a goal, but an added benefit.

Indeed, what;s been fascinating in the push/pull of political debate over my lifetime is the way what used to be a debate over emotional vs. rational in terms of left vs. right in this country, has reversed. It is now the left, more often, approaching debates from the position of thoughtful, rational approaches to policy and political action, while the right retreats ever more into orthodoxy, and rigid expressions of belief unmoored from fact. Emotion - particularly anger and hatred (and distrust) - rule the day. It is often impossible to even have rational debate across our deep divide because what we often call "not agreeing to the same facts" is one side simply refusing to deal in facts at all. Feelings are what matter - be it fear, suspicion, anger, righteousness or anything else. And often, it's so impossible to take seriously, the right has a growing internal reliance on a host of writers and commentators whose careers are built, entirely, on an abject rejection of seriousness altogether.

In the roughly 36 hours since the Trump Administration's budget has been made public, one organization in particular has come to the forefront of the debate over its absurd priorities and bad choices: Meals on Wheels. Meals on Wheels is funded, in part, in many communities out of Community Development Block Grants, grants that are made to organizations providing services meant to help communities in need. As Seth Meyers said in his witty takedown, no one, really, opposes delivering food to old people. Because that's all there is to Meals on Wheels: a healthy meal delivered to senior citizens in need of care at home.

In zeroing out the funding for Community Development Block Grants, Trump's Director of OMB, Mick Mulvaney justified that choice saying there's no proof the grants made under the program go to programs with any proven results or demonstrated need. What, he was asked about Meals on Wheels. Mulvaney largely sidestepped describing Meals on Wheels directly as ineffective, but maintained his broader point - these things may sound good, but they don't really do much.

Since then, there's been a wide ranging debate online about Meals on Wheels as the "Christian Thing To Do." That debate, of course, isn't actually simple: there are a variety ways to look at, and define, Christianity. What's striking, to me, is that the debate in many ways simply misses the point: it doesn't matter if one thinks Meals on Wheels is Christian or decent or otherwise morally good. The main thing is, it does an important, useful service, and the effectiveness and need for that service is well documented, and easily proved.

Liberals, in some sense, need to get over the tired right wing boilerplate of religiosity and moral certainty - we are well past the point of the Religious Right owning, or earning, their spot as the moral high ground. The election of a twice divorced, serial adulterer as their champion speaks volumes to the myriad ways that so called "evangelical voters" (Usually self described, and often less overtly religious than the wider public) have simply given up on expressing moral decency in politics. The right has nothing more than a belief system at this point to justify their views, and, more often than not, that belief system is confused, deeply flawed, and morally inconsistent.

The left has done admirable work, in my lifetime, to move away from a cadre of True Believers more interested in orthodoxy than then effectiveness. The right, on the other hand, seems to have simply given up on fighting the regression further into extreme beliefs unmoored from the real world and how it actually operates. And it's well past time that liberals need to let go of the pointless exercise of engaging with conservatives on Who Is More Morally Decent. Not because we can win the argument - and endorsing food for old people, surely, puts us there - but because the argument really isn't the point. Governing sensibly, thoughtfully and appropriately isn't just The Christian Thing To Do. It's the intelligent defensible thing we've been right about all along.

March 16, 2017

Certainly one conclusion to be reached about the early days of this Administration is that... how to put this... things are not running smoothly. One might even call it, dare we say... chaotic.

The wild zigs and zags of the White House inner circle - the unbelievable pronouncements that began, literally, on Inauguration Weekend with Sean Spicer's assertions about crowd size, the bewildering rollout of the "Travel Ban" Executive Order, the ongoing questions about ethics and finances and Russian collusion these folks can't avoid... we already have dozens of examples, little sense of coherence and a definite "what will happen next" anxiety. And with each new turn, each bizarre revelation, every twist of questionable or demonstrably false assertions... comes the question: "are they doing this on purpose?"

This question arrives with each new turn, each subsequent revelation. When Rachel Maddow brought David Cay Johnston on to discuss the sudden appearance of 2 pages of Trump's 2005 taxes - the only federal return that's been seen publicly - within minutes the cries went out that Trump had revealed it himself, on purpose. Why? Because it would distract from the failure of healthcare. Or charges about Russia. Or...something. One day later, it was back to stories of Obama-led surveillance! More chaos!

Conspiracy Theory is the hot phrase of the internet in these roiling political times, and after years of putting up with at least a willingness to hear these things out, the biggest lesson I've learned is: beware of convenient theories that serve as catch-all, all encompassing notions of How To Explain Everything. On the right, it's their elastic use of "Saul Alinsky" and dark mutterings of socialist tactics ascribed to every liberal idea. On the left, it's a theory about public manipulation and propaganda where every "fake news" story and conservative talking point is meant to distract and confuse and sow chaos in the general public. It's this latter theory that's serving as the narrative background noise for Chaos in the Trump White House. They're doing it all on purpose.

This theory would be amusing if things didn't seem so serious. It is, no doubt, confusing to deal with the rapid pace of lies, false assertions, and flat out fabulism taking over institutions of government defined primarily by the trust and faith of the public in them. When "Presidential Spokesman" loses even the fig leaf of quiet accuracy afforded it over time, where can we go for real facts? How can it not be part of a grand design?

For me, it's the very lack of skepticism in any of the moves the Trump folks have made that puts the Chaos Theory to bed. I have no doubt the White House took a "full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes" approach to the Travel Ban order; but I sincerely doubt that they anticipated a host of legal challenges, spontaneous protests at major airports from coast to coast (and crucially for them, everywhere in between), and the self inflicted wound that had them limping to reconstruct a more carefully worded order that has, as of this writing, yet to even take effect. To call that "deliberate" isn't just 3 dimensional chess - it's granting a kind of insight I am quite sure no one, not even a self styled Dark Lord like Steve Bannon, actually possesses in this Administration.

The more likely explanation is that, from the start, this Administration has been a series of gaffes, missteps and rookie mistakes on an epic scale, both due to the near criminal lack of experienced hands and the operatic levels of theatricality favored by the man (ostensibly) in charge. Sensible, thoughtful people would have stopped using Twitter to make policy and personal pronouncements long ago - Donald Trump is neither sensible nor thoughtful, that seems clear. Basic knowledge of the process of government would have led most transition teams to carefully pre-check cabinet nominees for potential red flags; not these folks.

As much as we bemoan the state of media coverage of all of this, it's unfair, I think, not to acknowledge that much of the mass media is rising to the Trump moment. The Washington Post hasn't seemed this energized and essential since the heady days of Watergate. The New York Times seems to have awoken from its Grey Lady slumbers with a renewed verve. MSNBC has found its purpose. These are all to the good, and already are producing results. Aside from my dislike of conspiracy theory (it may have been the attempt at communist indoctrination I experienced at 13. Long story), I fundamentally question notions that Americans can be gassed into submission by dark mutterings of an invisible hand wielding hazy propaganda. We may, yes, be a nation enthralled by Bachelorettes and Kardashians, but we're also smart and observant and empowered by the very free society that's supposedly under constant threat. More than our faith in political leaders or popular figures, our nation is defined, fundamentally, by our faith in each other. That faith may be tested, but it's nowhere near as dead as some might suggest. And propaganda can't wish that away, or ultimately succeed in wrecking it.

Complainers surely have it right, though: the pace of these disasters is exhausting. The remarkable ability of these Trump folks to make multiple missteps at the same time is bewildering. It's hard to keep up. It's scary to think of where this is all headed. It's frightening to live moment to moment wondering what will happen next hour, tomorrow, next week. For all the feelings that this presidency had the makings of a disaster, surely we can all admit - this is by no means the exact disaster we had in mind.

The mistake, though, is to endow the people making these dramatic missteps some sort of supernatural secret power that absolves them of simply being atrocious at what they're doing. It's a mistake to not simply call Kellyanne Conway a terrible, useless spokesperson for her President and his causes. It's a mistake not to note the sycophantic intensity of a flunky like Stephen Miller, and how it undermines any ability to present himself with seriousness. It's a mistake not to note the inherent tension between Bannon and Priebus and simply accept assertions that they run as a carefully coordinated unit when clearly they do not. At a moment full of untruths, we do not have deny every reality in front of us. And surely we can see chaos for what it is: chaotic. And nothing that's helping a poorly run, inexperienced Administration make any real progress on the things they say they're trying to address.

If chaos is what Steve Bannon wants... then that's simply another example of how he's not helping his cause, but hurting it. Projecting a sense of command, sureness, authority, an ease with dealing with the unexpected - that, those things, is what surely would be terrifying in a Trump presidency. Imagine if they were good at this! Imagine if they were, actually, getting away with any or all of it! Imagine that we didn't have tools and tricks and public outcry to throw them off their game at any moment! We do and we can, and frankly, it's the successes of the resistance (or #Resistance if you prefer) that's been the real tale of the early days of this horrible, disastrous Administration. Let's not let them sell chaos as their winning move.

March 14, 2017

From the beginning, the cries of "repeal Obamacare" - cries that started before the thing was even passed - made no sense. "Repeal Obamacare" has always had an air of exactitude that betrays how little its opponents understand about the bill, or for that matter healthcare policy, at all. Which is why the expanded "repeal and replace" mantra, never mind the farce now playing out in Congress, is both stupid, and dangerous.

You can't replace something with nothing, the saying goes, and yet that is, very much, how Republicans are approaching health policy. The ACA is a flawed, messy piece of legislation that no one can, or should, entirely love. But those real, practical problems within the ACA are nothing like the visceral antipathy of opponents who long ago gave up on trying to respond thoughtfully to the issues raised in healthcare reform.

If Republicans succeed - and on some level that's always a distinct possibility - the current bill is obviously disastrous: millions losing health insurance, problems around delivery of care will increase, costs will once again spiral out of control (to say nothing of the pointless windfall of tax cuts for the very very wealthy). Conservatives have no answer to these concerns because, as I've tried to point out for years to anyone who'd listen, the right has little or no serious expertise in healthcare policy, or for that matter, policy more generally. They have continuously thrown buzzwords and catch phrases where a policy should be: "free market solutions," "patient choice," ""bottom up, not top down." These terms are meaningless. And the nonsensical bill they threw together, in desperation, shows just how thin their thinking on the topic really is.

For one thing, this isn't repeal. The bill literally amends the Affordable Care Act, which alone may be a deal killer that even a majority in the House can't accept. Second, as long expected, the bill hedges on dealing with "popular" provisions of the ACA: the "stay on your parents plan til 26" option for children, the protection for preexisting conditions (though weakened), even, interestingly, a refusal to flat out kill the expansion of Medicaid, which for anti-poverty conservatives should have been an easy lift.

More importantly, conservatives betray their failures by wilting at every turn when hard choices come up - the ACA, as it turns out, is a complicated fabric of interlocked pieces where pulling on one thread causes the whole thing to unravel. I'm not sure even many of its supporters realized how intricate the construction has turned out to be. Pretty much any and every move conservatives have made has revealed a simmering mess just waiting to blow up in their faces - from trying to kill its financing to removing the insurance mandates to "bending the cost curve"... Conservatives have been forced back to the ACA because its basic premise - retaining the guarantee of employer based health insurance - underpins even their disjointed approach to a solution.

Once again here's the real point: if you use employment as the basis for insuring people, you have to provide solutions for people who don't fall under the defining criterion. That is, you have to deal with retirees (Medicare). You have to deal with people self employed or freelance or otherwise outside conventional employer-employee models of work (the exchanges or the individual market). And you have to deal with people who are unemployable or unable to be employed, such as the poorest and least educated (Medicaid and disability). This is the problem, and there really aren't a lot of great answers. There never were. The only solution is to spend the additional money to provide the options to the people who otherwise can't afford access to care. And fundamentally, the debate we're having isn't about the buzzwords about markets, and freedom and mythical choice: it's the basic, practical fact that the right simply wants to do less and have it cost less and damn the people who get hurt in the process. That's not a policy - it's the abdication of policy for nothing more than the monetary gain of a select few.

I've resisted wading into the weeds of what we're calling a "healthcare debate" partly because no one should be giving the right the cover of taking these proposals seriously as policy. They're not, and they shouldn't be. Until the conservative right can own up to its realities and face the problems they're trying to avoid by any means necessary, this isn't any kind of a healthy, productive conversation. Getting lost in their sea of silly tax credits, cuts to Medicaid (never mind their long desired death blow to the program entirely, a/k/a "block grants"), and reverse engineered regulatory changes is a fool's errand. The choice is much more simple, the terms especially stark - we can wreck the progress we've made increasing access to insurance and care, or we can deal with the problems we actually have. The rest is nonsense.

The sad fact is that the real failure of the ACA, still, is the failure to educate the public, the media and the political class about the realities of healthcare in the US. Conservatives get away with their falsehoods and fabrications and fantasies of free markets because few people arrive at the discussion armed with the information needed to confront them with facts and knowledge to refute their claims (this, sadly, applies to a number of other discussions, like education). Absent that information and awareness, it's easy as conservatives do, to claim a "death spiral" in insurance, to make hay out of the meaningless "choose your doctor" arguments, and on and on. The Know Nothings triumphed in November, and "repeal and replace" is the triumph of their crazed ambitions. Party on. If we're lucky, the best we can hope for is their complete failure.

March 10, 2017

Get Out is so dark and twisted that it feels like more than a movie; it may be a singular of cultural event, one we can look back on in forty years and say, "oh, that's when race relations really started to go back down the drain." Nervy and tough, Jordan Peele's solo writing and directing debut isn't content to nibble on the edges or stand on the sidelines of a nation's darkest fears and unspoken truths. Wade in the water, baby. And let the current wash you away.

Along with Keegan Key, Peele has enjoyed a meteoric rise as creative forces to be reckoned with in Hollywood. I wasn't a huge fan of Key & Peele, their ambitious comedy show (then, too, I'm one of those never fully onboard for Dave Chapelle), but I respect the sheer scope of their talents and their nervy approach to humor in the "post racial" age. We're all so much ... better. Except when we're not.

On film, separately and together, it's getting clearer what both men brought to their pairing - Key seems more relaxed in his politics, the lighter hand, with the real sass in his humor. Peele, I suspect, takes the less sanguine view - don't give anyone too much credit, never forget how we got here, and humor with more bite on a larger scale. Get Out may try to use humor as a release (or better, as a nervous, embarrassing notion of the awkward ways we relate across race and class), but none of the funny sticks. The joke, really, is on anyone too naive to see danger lurking any and everywhere.

The film plays on a conventional, postmodern, upper middle class moment - a young couple, black man and white woman, on the way to her parents for his first "meet the family" weekend. Her dad's a neurosurgeon; her mom's a psychiatrist. Their lovely home is "upstate, by the lake" on a secluded lot. There's even a lovely pair of hired help - a black handyman, and a black housekeeper/cook. Watch dad laughingly apologize for such cliches as he admits a fondness for President Obama! So familiar! So awkward.

Things start to go awry with the arrival of brother Jeremy, a snarling bucket of rage and resentment barely contained by sly banter. It's the family dinner where everything starts to feel especially off, and from there, things rapidly go downhill: a gathering of the parents' friends takes on baroque weirdness, the black people around seem oddly composed, and a host of off putting conversations leave an uncomfortable aftertaste.

Oh, by the way, mom does hypnosis. Watch the clinking teacup!

Once the pieces fall into place, Get Out finally lifts the veil on all the suburban niceties and gets down to the hard violent business its maker - and its audience - probably came for. Though Peele definitely has a feel for the tension and shocks of horror as a genre, he hasn't quite come up with an especially fresh plot - virtually every surprise is unsurprising and broadly telegraphed (and, as you pick over it afterwards, probably as full of plot holes as I found). Acting isn't especially subtle or nuanced (or for that matter, memorable). Though handsomely shot and stylishly composed, the film feels, mostly, pedestrian - and thoroughly middle class.

None of that is necessarily bad - Get Out works, really, because of it's banality, because once things become clear, it's mostly just what you thought all along. And by "you thought all along" I mean the conventions of stereotypes and prejudices many of us bring to the racial divide - distrust of others, suspicion of motives, fears about what it means to "cross to the other side." This is an angry film, with few nice things to say about anyone or any group. They really are out to get you. No one is on your side. Only trust those closest to you.

Beneath it's glossy, indie but on a nice budget feel, Get Out has a dark, little, grim spirited heart, with nothing nice to say about interracial relations, bridging our divides, or trying to understand one another. I'm not surprised, as a result, that the film does feel especially in tune with the times. When a president flirts with white supremacy, is a horror film with a worldview straight out of blaxploitation that much of a stretch? Not really. Give Peele points for nerve. But don't expect me to say I feel good about it.